Women who win prizes get less money and prestige

Ma, Yifang; Oliveira, Diego F. M.; Woodruff, Teresa K.; Uzzi, Brian

doi:10.1038/d41586-019-00091-3

Cited by 76 publications

(70 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Gender disparities in scientific awards have shown that not only do women receive fewer awards, but they also receive less money and prestige. 21 The AAPM award category with the lowest percentage of women awardees is the Farrington Daniels Award, which is for an outstanding paper on radiation therapy dosimetry, planning or delivery published in the journal Medical Physics in the previous calendar year. This is concordant with other studies that have shown a gender disparity in the number of women who receive research funding 22 and participate in academic activities.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state of gender diversity in medical physics

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to quantify gender diversity in leadership positions within the field of medical physics, as well as within award categories and other recognitions by the American Association of Physicists in Medicine. The April 2019 PDF version of the AAPM membership directory was searched for all users self‐reporting as holding a leadership position at their place of employment, those elected to leadership positions within the AAPM, those serving as chair of an AAPM council, and those listed as having received an award or other such recognition from AAPM (beginning in 1972 with the William D. Coolidge Award). Historical data for these categories were obtained from archived membership directories on the AAPM website. The AAPM website was also used to identify members who have served on the Medical Physics Editorial Board. The Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP) website was used to identify the current directors of graduate and residency programs (as of July 2019). Because gender was not a reported field in any of these categories, gender was assigned by reviewing names and photographs. Percentage representation in these respects was compared to the overall percentage of women in the AAPM in 2019 (23.3%) and reported the number of women working as medical physicists globally (29.8%). Within the AAPM, the percentage of women reporting clinical leadership roles is 12.0% within the US, 13.6% in Canada, and 18.0% in all other countries combined. Women comprise only 7.5% of CAMPEP graduate program directors and 21.5% of residency program directors. The percentage of female presidents in AAPM is 8.1%. A woman has never served as Editor‐in‐Chief of Medical Physics, and the average for the past 10 yr for female board membership is 13.6%. With the exception of the John R. Cameron Young Investigators Symposium Award, the percentage of all female AAPM awardees is less than the percentage of women AAPM members. The lowest percentage of female representation within AAPM is among council chairs with only one woman having held a chair position out of 42 positions (2.4%) from 1970 to July 2019. Similar to the traditional discipline of physics, medical physics displays a clear gender disparity with regard to leadership positions, both within educational training programs and the AAPM. Further investigation into the demographics of the field and psychosocial factors affecting medical physicists may help to elucidate the origin of these disparities and inform strategies to address them.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The state of gender diversity in medical physics

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Adoption of systematic guidelines to end gender discrimination and improve the advancement of women in medicine 94,181 Support rising women physicians through sponsorship, 182 equitable funding (grant and award), 183 and equitable collaboration and representation among authors, 97,98 award recipients, 93,94,183 faculty, editorial boards, 184 committee members, 100 and presidents of medical specialty societies 99 Improve parental support, including but not limited to ''longer paid maternity leave, backup child care, lactation support, and increased schedule flexibility'' 79 Improve support for physicians as family caregivers 19 Improve control over patient-related decision-making, including but not limited to selection of referral physicians and determination of hospital length of stay 19 Improve control or influence over work environment such as space and facilities, clinic/office schedule, patient load, and patient characteristics 19…”

Section: Gender Discriminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physician Workforce Disparities and Patient Care: A Narrative Review

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Ensuring the strength of the physician workforce is essential to optimizing patient care. Challenges that undermine the profession include inequities in advancement, high levels of burnout, reduced career duration, and elevated risk for mental health problems, including suicide. This narrative review explores whether physicians within four subpopulations represented in the workforce at levels lower than predicted from their numbers in the general population-women, racial and ethnic minorities in medicine, sexual and gender minorities, and people with disabilities-are at elevated risk for these problems, and if present, how these problems might be addressed to support patient care. In essence, the underlying question this narrative review explores is as follows: Do physician workforce disparities affect patient care? While numerous articles and high-profile reports have examined the relationship between workforce diversity and patient care, to our knowledge, this is the first review to examine the important relationship between diversity-related workforce disparities and patient care. Methods: Five databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, and EBSCO Discovery Service) were searched by a librarian. Additional resources were included by authors, as deemed relevant to the investigation. Results: The initial database searches identified 440 potentially relevant articles. Articles were categorized according to subtopics, including (1) underrepresented physicians and support for vulnerable patient populations; (2) factors that could exacerbate the projected physician deficit; (3) methods of addressing disparities among underrepresented physicians to support patient care; or (4) excluded (n = 155). The authors identified another 220 potentially relevant articles. Of 505 potentially relevant articles, 199 (39.4%) were included in this review. Conclusions: This report demonstrates an important gap in the literature regarding the impact of physician workforce disparities and their effect on patient care. This is a critical public health issue and should be urgently addressed in future research and considered in clinical practice and policy decision-making.

show abstract

“…The promotion of gender initiatives in science has been a vital part of the European Union’s research policy for the last two decades, with a number of special projects funded by the EU to address the gender gap in science at different levels [ 1 ]. Despite many policy intentions and initiatives, the unequal recognition of scientific performance among male and female scientists is still prevalent in science [ 26 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study builds upon the literature documenting gender disparities in science by investigating research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in three countries. This analysis departs from both the general comparison of researchers across organizational settings and academic appointments on one hand, and the definition of “elite” by the research outcome variables on the other, which are common in previous studies. Instead, this paper’s approach considers the stratification of scientific careers by carefully constructing matched samples of men and women holding research chairs in Canada, the United States and South Africa, along with a control group of departmental peers. The analysis is based on a unique, hand-curated dataset including 943 researchers, which allows for a systematic comparison of successful scientists vetted through similar selection mechanisms. Our results show that even among elite scientists a pattern of stratified productivity and recognition by gender remains, with more prominent gaps in recognition. Our results point to the need for gender equity initiatives in science policy to critically examine assessment criteria and evaluation mechanisms to emphasize multiple expressions of research excellence.

show abstract

Women who win prizes get less money and prestige

Cited by 76 publications

References 8 publications

The state of gender diversity in medical physics

The state of gender diversity in medical physics

Physician Workforce Disparities and Patient Care: A Narrative Review

Gender gaps in research productivity and recognition among elite scientists in the U.S., Canada, and South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About